[Info] Minor change in canon policy

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Kynes

unread,
Jul 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/28/00
to
From a recent conversation with John Ordover (full transcript available at request, either from myself or from Chuck):

Kynes23: I don't know if you remember, but I've spoken to you a couple of times with regard to the "canon" status of ST novels. In
the discussion group you also may or may not remember, a question has arisen about the same status of the Star Trek Magazine. I'm
not sure if you know or not, but if you do: what is it? Is it official, or is it like the novels?

ORDOVER: Abosultely nothing is canon that is not on-screen.
ORDOVER: I don't know any way of stating that that is clearer.

Kynes23: Yeah, that's a pretty clear-cut answer. :-) So Paramount doesn't make
any distinction between "more official" and "less official"? It's either canon
and on-screen or it's bunk?

ORDOVER: There is no -off-screen- source of official information save to the extent, for instance, that the Encyclopedia draws
information from the shows - example...

ORDOVER: If, in the Encyclopedia, it says that the TOS Enterprise's serial number is 1701, then that's canonical, because it
accurately reflects information from the show.

ORDOVER: But speculations from the Encyclopedia - the italics stuff - aren't.

This position is further supported by the official Paramount website, specifically, on the following questions:

http://www.startrek.com/information/faq.asp?ID=1321

"As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live action episodes
and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts." (Indicates no distinction is made by Paramount between "official" and "canon".)

http://www.startrek.com/information/faq.asp?ID=1374
"There have been earlier versions of technical manuals, including 'Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise' (Shane Johnson) and the
'Star Trek Starfleet Technical Manual' (Franz Joseph), but these books, although fun to read, were not written by production
personnel and are not considered 'canon.'" (This page lists the TNG and DS9 TMs among these sources as well as computer games,
without making any point to distinguish the TMs as official -- because, as Mr. Ordover stated crystal-clearly, they are not.)

http://www.startrek.com/information/faq.asp?ID=1327

"The magazines Star Trek Communicator, Star Trek: The Magazine and Star Trek Monthly (UK) are all licensed by Viacom Consumer
Products and are not affiliated with STARTREK.COM." (Star Trek Communicator is a fanclub e-mail newsletter, and Paramount here
seems to grant ST: The Magazine similar status, further supporting Mr. Ordover's statements.)

Clearly, ASVS has misunderstood Paramount's policy on officialdom in the ST universe for a great long while. This alarming turn of
events surprised me, and I decided to ask a prominent pro-ST debater his opinion on things:

Kynes: "Paramount and Lucasfilm's standing on canon/official is the ultimate word. We can vote to sort out things in matters of
confusion (i.e. EGs over novels) but we can't add sources they think are bunk (toys, novels in ST) or remove things that they say
are legit (Star Trek V, Christmas Special).

Now, without further explanation unless the answer is no, does this represent your position accurately and honestly?"

Lord Edam de Fromage: "Yes."

My duty was and is clear. Even Edam, one of the most steadfast ST supporters, felt that Paramount's policy overrode any past votes.
This has long been my feeling as well. Clearly, all printed material falls into the category of "sources they think are bunk", so we
can't use them. No vote necessary.

With such overriding consensus on both sides of the debate, and a go-ahead from the Council, the canon policy has been modified to
include the following items as invalid source materials:

-- The TNG TM
-- The DS9 TM
-- Star Trek: The Magazine
-- Star Trek Fact Files
-- Novels
-- Comics
-- The Star Trek Encyclopedia
-- The Star Trek Chronology

A note will also, of course, be included that these are just a few of the sources now disallowed; as per Mr. Ordover's statements
(who was speaking in his capacity as a Paramount official, and certainly overrides anything we might have to say on the subject) the
*only* things admissable as pro-ST evidence are the movies and episodes -- except the two novel exceptions granted on the Paramount
website, naturally.

The Rules have already been updated to reflect this; Strowbridge and I have begun examining the Past Threads to see which will have
to be updated to reflect the newly-discovered invalidity of the Technical Manuals. We have already come up with several candidates;
if any of you can think of more (Edam, your help in particular would be useful here) please post them here so we can discuss them
and perhaps draw some new conclusions.

If there are any questions about the new policy, its origins, or if you wish to request a copy of the full transcript, please e-mail
a Council member.
--
-LK!
[ ky...@choam.org ] [ MSN Messenger: ky...@choam.org ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ]

"Kynes is the devil."
- Goomba [a Spacebattles baby]


sb_co...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
Well, I find this news very interesting, but, I find your interpritation to
be quite misleading. The quote:

"Pocket Books have published several excellent reference guides,
but due to the overwhelming nature of the Star Trek oeuvre, it's
nearly impossible to create technical reference for every ship seen
on the show. However, they have gone a long way to help those of
you who are technically minded by publishing the following books:
"Star Trek: The Next Generation - U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701-D
Blueprints" (Rick Sternbach), "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
Technical Manual" (Herman Zimmerman, Rick Sternbach and
Doug Drexler) and the "Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical
Manual" (Rick Sternbach and Michael Okuda)."

the FAQs considers these as excellent reference guides, and
theses are the famed ST TMs that people use as official material.
the quote that you and strowbridge are intentionaly
misrepresenting is in the following paragraph:

"There have been earlier versions of technical manuals, including
"Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise" (Shane Johnson) and the "Star
Trek Starfleet Technical Manual" (Franz Joseph), but these books,
although fun to read, were not written by production personnel and
are not considered 'canon.'"

First this is a seperate paragraph, and therefor is focusing on an
entirely different point and on entirely different sources. When they
are saying that these are not 'canon' they are reffereing to the ones
mentioned in the paragraph (anyone who has taken AP English
could easily come to this conclusion), not the previous one. How
do I know this, well, here is the very large flaw in your interpritation
where you are trying to make the quote:

"but these books, although fun to read, were not written by
production personnel and are not considered 'canon."

fit BOTH paragraphs. The problem is, the sources in the first
paragraph (The Blueprints, TNG and DS9 TMs) WERE written by
production personnel. HOW CAN YOU MAKE THAT QUOTE FIT
BOTH PARAGRAPHS WHEN THERE IS A PROBLEM LIKE
THIS?...... EASY, YOU CANT! If the quote WAS talking about the
sources mentioned in both the first and second paragraph, then
why do they say "were not written by production personnel" when
infact Herman Zimmerman and Rick Sternbach are production
personnel (that I am 100% positive of)? NOW, the sources
mentioned in the second paragraph are not production personnel,
but the ones in the first ARE. THEREFOR, the quote you are using
to back up your argument ONLY applies to Mr. Scott's Guide to the
Enterprise and the Star Trek Starfleet Technical Manual, since
those are the ONLY 2 books in that ENTIRE ARTICLE that have not
been written by production personnel. SO, this just furthers the
point that when they are talking about NON CANNON, they are
refering to the sources in the same paragraph, not both like you
and strowbridge are trying to pass off.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Elim Garak

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
Who the hell is this Ordover, and why should I give a damn about what he thinks? What makes his opinions and ideas more valid than those of an ST writer and
producer, and the two people who actually write, create, and invent most of the tech on the show?

--
"I follow you, 'Vorga.' I find you, 'Vorga.'
I pay you back, me. I rot you.
I kill you, 'Vorga.' I kill you filthy."

-Alfred Bester, "Tiger! Tiger!"

PREDATOR

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to

Elim Garak wrote:
>
> Who the hell is this Ordover, and why should I give a damn about what he thinks? What makes his opinions and ideas more valid than those of an ST writer and
> producer, and the two people who actually write, create, and invent most of the tech on the show?

A good question. He's an editor, I believe, of the ST novels. These are
unrelated to the tech manuals, and so he does not have the authority to
proclaim the Tech manuals as canon, official, or garbage.

Elim Garak

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
Just out of curiosity, who gave you permission to change the FAQ without a vote?

--

Strowbridge

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to

Excuse me! He's the one in charge of what can and can not go into
novels. He says what's official "Star Trek Facts" and what is "Star Trek
Fiction." That is his job.

And he said that the only source for Star Trek Fact is the live action
movies and TV episodes.

C.S.Strowbridge

Dalton

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
PREDATOR wrote:
>
> Elim Garak wrote:
> >
> > Who the hell is this Ordover, and why should I give a damn about what he thinks? What makes his opinions and ideas more valid than those > > of an ST writer and producer, and the two people who actually write, create, and invent most of the tech on the show?
>

He is the senior editor of the Star Trek novels.

> A good question. He's an editor, I believe, of the ST novels. These are
> unrelated to the tech manuals, and so he does not have the authority to
> proclaim the Tech manuals as canon, official, or garbage.

They are all books and I imagine they still fall under his domain. If
anybody has any knowledge as to what canon is, he does.

--
Dalton

http://read.at/asvsfanfics
http://faq.at/asvsfuq

"I hope you have you'er tombstone picked out coffin breath" --LT.Hit-Man

PREDATOR

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to

Strowbridge wrote:
>
> PREDATOR wrote:
> >
> > Elim Garak wrote:
>
> > > Who the hell is this Ordover, and why should I give a damn about what
> > > he thinks? What makes his opinions and ideas more valid than those of
> > > an ST writer and producer, and the two people who actually write,
> > > create, and invent most of the tech on the show?
> >

> > A good question. He's an editor, I believe, of the ST novels. These are
> > unrelated to the tech manuals, and so he does not have the authority to
> > proclaim the Tech manuals as canon, official, or garbage.
>

> Excuse me! He's the one in charge of what can and can not go into
> novels. He says what's official "Star Trek Facts" and what is "Star Trek
> Fiction." That is his job.

He is in charge of what goes into novels, but nothing else. His criteria
for what can go into novels or not are not necessarily paramount's exact
view on canoon of official. He cant speak for them, he can speak for
himself only, and the novels alone. I'm awaiting word from Rick
Sternbach and Paramount, but until I get better authorised word on what
is official or canon I'll continue on my merry way with the tech manuals
etc.

Strowbridge

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
PREDATOR wrote:
>
> Strowbridge wrote:
> >
> > PREDATOR wrote:

> > > > Who the hell is this Ordover, and why should I give a damn about
> > > > what he thinks? What makes his opinions and ideas more valid than
> > > > those of an ST writer and producer, and the two people who actually
> > > > write, create, and invent most of the tech on the show?
> > >
> > > A good question. He's an editor, I believe, of the ST novels. These
> > > are unrelated to the tech manuals, and so he does not have the
> > > authority to proclaim the Tech manuals as canon, official, or
> > > garbage.
> >
> > Excuse me! He's the one in charge of what can and can not go into
> > novels. He says what's official "Star Trek Facts" and what is "Star
> > Trek Fiction." That is his job.
>
> He is in charge of what goes into novels,

And in doing so he sets what is 'Star Trek Fact' and what is 'Star Trek
Fiction.'

> His criteria for what can go into novels or not are not necessarily
> paramount's exact view on canoon of official.

It bloody well better be. He's the ONLY one who has to keep EVERYTHING
under control. Remember, the novels deal with ALL eras of Star Trek.
Berga, Sternbach, Okuda, etc. only have one or two limited areas under
their control.

> I'm awaiting word from Rick Sternbach and Paramount, but until I get
> better authorised word on what is official or canon I'll continue on my
> merry way with the tech manuals etc.

So until you can get ANOTHER person at Paramount to confirm what this
source says you are going to ignore the clearest word we have on the
matter. Not a good way to go.

C.S.Strowbridge

Kynes

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
<sb_co...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8ltoml$nt1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

> Well, I find this news very interesting, but, I find your interpritation to
> be quite misleading. The quote:

To begin: there is NO interpretation being done here. You have totally ignored what
John Ordover has said on this matter, which is *crystal* clear -- I asked him specific
questions with the exact doubts of this newsgroup in mind.

The website is SUPPORTING evidence for his official word.

[snip]

> the FAQs considers these as excellent reference guides, and
> theses are the famed ST TMs that people use as official material.

Yeah, reference guides -- NOT source material. Read the Rules -- the Encyclopedia is
a legit "reference guide" too, insofar as it "refers" to what's on-screen. It is not a
valid source of information by itself.

> the quote that you and strowbridge are intentionaly
> misrepresenting is in the following paragraph:

Nothing is being represented about the quote "There is no off-screen source of official
information." Tell me how that's unclear for you.

[snip rest]

Strowbridge

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
Kynes wrote:

> From a recent conversation with John Ordover (full transcript available
> at request, either from myself or from Chuck):

Ok, since it has become apparent that some people are doubting John's
credentials in this area I thought I should point out a few facts:

1.) John Ordover is in charge of the novels.

2.) The novels MUST follow Canon (I.E. Star Trek Facts.)

3.) The novels do NOT have to follow Non-Canon (I.E. Star Trek Fiction.)

Therefore, John Ordover MUST know which is which.

He said two VERY important things:

1.) The ONLY source for canon information is the live action movies and
TV episodes.

2.) If it's not Canon, it's speculation.

C.S.Strowbridge

Kynes

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
"Elim Garak" <pol...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message news:39828877...@u.washington.edu...

> Who the hell is this Ordover, and why should I give a damn about what he thinks?

Oh, excuse me, I was assuming turtle-level intelligence of the people reading that
notice. Didn't realize you were back. John Ordover is the chief editor for the ST
novels. He is in possibly the best position to know canon policy -- unlike Sternbach or
anyone else who might comment on the matter, a large part of John Ordover's job is
continuity. The novels have to be checked for it, his job covers all four series, etc.

Thus, it is *very* difficult for me to imagine anyone who could contradict him on this
one. He is not in a position to be wrong about something this important. Further, his
say is backed up by the website, indicating a Paramount-wide policy.

Kynes

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
"PREDATOR" <san.n...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:39828DF0...@xtra.co.nz...

> A good question. He's an editor, I believe, of the ST novels. These are
> unrelated to the tech manuals, and so he does not have the authority to
> proclaim the Tech manuals as canon, official, or garbage.

Oh, I see -- a higher-up at Paramount who has, as a job responsbility, ensuring
continuity in the timeline, is in no position to comment about Paramount's canonity
policy? Who would be, then? You?

Eat my shit.

Kynes

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
"PREDATOR" <san.n...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:3982983D...@xtra.co.nz...

> > Excuse me! He's the one in charge of what can and can not go into
> > novels. He says what's official "Star Trek Facts" and what is "Star Trek
> > Fiction." That is his job.
>

> He is in charge of what goes into novels, but nothing else.

Right. And a large part of that ISN'T knowing Paramount's policy on all printed
material, and what's official and what's not. Not like it's his responsibility to know
and enforce those things... oh, wait. Yes it is.

> His criteria
> for what can go into novels or not are not necessarily paramount's exact
> view on canoon of official.

And why wouldn't they be? He's a Paramount official, one of the higher-ups in the Star
Trek world. His say on the matter is official and has NEVER been wrong before -- what
he told group members in e-mails later appeared on the Paramount website, etc. He is
obviously in a position to speak to the canon policy of Paramount, simply because such
a large portion of his job deals with continuity and canon.

> He cant speak for them, he can speak for himself only, and the novels alone.

He was speaking in his capacity as a Paramount/Star Trek official. If you don't realize
this, then you're a retard.

> I'm awaiting word from Rick Sternbach

... who is in no position to talk about these kind of things, firstly, and secondly,
will tell you exactly what Mr. Ordover did. You think that Paramount representatives to
the world at large disagree on this? Or what? Why would John Ordover NOT know the canon
policy? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.

> and Paramount

You expect a booming voice from the sky, or what? John Ordover was speaking for
Paramount. We have Paramount's word on this -- in the form of John Ordover's say-so and
the website.

I might point out that the website and Mr. Ordover agree to the point that it was, in
fact, the website's information itself which prompted me to ask him about this matter;
he confirmed that the way Strowbridge and I were reading it was completely correct, in
VERY clear terms.

> but until I get better authorised word on what
> is official or canon I'll continue on my merry way with the tech manuals
> etc.

Okay, Tim.

Kynes

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
"Elim Garak" <pol...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message news:39828F49...@u.washington.edu...

> Just out of curiosity, who gave you permission to change the FAQ without a vote?

The Rules have always reflected Paramount and Lucasfilm's canon policy; we can't vote
on that. Even Edam agreed to that when I asked him, which I did before making this
announcement. I further conferred with the Council and it was decided that no vote was
necessary.

Anton Polinger

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
Kynes wrote:
>
> > Who the hell is this Ordover, and why should I give a damn about what he thinks?
>
> Oh, excuse me, I was assuming turtle-level intelligence of the people reading that
> notice. Didn't realize you were back.

Are you of the opinion that some significant intellect is required to simply know who some flunky is? Oh, I see, it would be significant from your POV, sorry, my
bad.

> John Ordover is the chief editor for the ST
> novels. He is in possibly the best position to know canon policy -- unlike Sternbach or
> anyone else who might comment on the matter, a large part of John Ordover's job is
> continuity. The novels have to be checked for it, his job covers all four series, etc.
>
> Thus, it is *very* difficult for me to imagine anyone who could contradict him on this
> one. He is not in a position to be wrong about something this important. Further, his
> say is backed up by the website, indicating a Paramount-wide policy.

Oh? You mean the Paramount website does NOT state that the two Jeri Taylor's books are canon? Or that the TNG and DS9 TMs are 'canon'? What does it say instead
of this, in that case?

Kynes

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
"Anton Polinger" <pol...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message news:3982A55D...@u.washington.edu...

> > Thus, it is *very* difficult for me to imagine anyone who could contradict him on this
> > one. He is not in a position to be wrong about something this important. Further, his
> > say is backed up by the website, indicating a Paramount-wide policy.
>
> Oh? You mean the Paramount website does NOT state that the two Jeri Taylor's
> books are canon?

The Rules note this exception. Since John Ordover edited the manuscripts for those novels,
I'm pretty sure he knows their status. Not mentioning them just means that he was focusing
on broader issues.

> Or that the TNG and DS9 TMs are 'canon'?

Find me the statement that says this. Oh, it isn't there; it's just your lack of English
skills playing tricks on you.

Lord Edam de Fromage

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
Two medics rushed into the room pulling the crash cart. "My god what
happened to him?" "umm, take a look at this message from Kynes..it gave
him a heart attack"

> The Rules have always reflected Paramount and Lucasfilm's canon policy; we can't vote
> on that. Even Edam agreed to that when I asked him, which I did before making this
> announcement. I further conferred with the Council and it was decided that no vote was
> necessary.

Yes, and I support you in your stance on the matter, I just think
you have rushed into it without thinking it through properly.

I busy sorting out old arguments and other ramifications of your
actions at this very moment, and believe this could be the best thing
that could happen for the debates in this newsgroup. We can no longer fob
people off with the been-there-done-that attitude many of the regulars
have been using over the past twelve months. All debates will have to be
re-assesed incase the corrected policy changes anything.


--
Lord Edam de Fromage

AIM:Sorborus
WEB:www.trek-wars.co.uk

They had a system there pretty close to ours - but it had only 7 stars
and one gas giant -- Elim Garak

Paul Cassidy

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to

Strowbridge <strow...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3982951B...@home.com...
> PREDATOR wrote:

> >
> > Elim Garak wrote:
>
> > > Who the hell is this Ordover, and why should I give a damn about what
> > > he thinks? What makes his opinions and ideas more valid than those of
> > > an ST writer and producer, and the two people who actually write,
> > > create, and invent most of the tech on the show?
> >
> > A good question. He's an editor, I believe, of the ST novels. These are
> > unrelated to the tech manuals, and so he does not have the authority to
> > proclaim the Tech manuals as canon, official, or garbage.
>
> Excuse me! He's the one in charge of what can and can not go into
> novels. He says what's official "Star Trek Facts" and what is "Star Trek
> Fiction." That is his job.
>

The novels are not currently considered canon. However, if your explanation
is true and he determines star trek facts, then if he does his job properly,
surely non-historical facts from the novels should now be considered canon.

Paul Cassidy

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
It seems to me that we have a problem here. In the past, cases where Rick
Sternbach quotes have been used, have been rejected on the basis that he
does not speak for Star Trek, and merely works for the franchise. If that
holds true for Rick, then surely it also holds true for John Ordovers, who
doesn't even work for "canon" star trek. If we are to take the "creators"
word, then surely like everything else it should be ranked. Those who work
for canon sources (ie shows and movies) ranked highest, and everyone else
lower or ignored.

> > From a recent conversation with John Ordover (full transcript available
> > at request, either from myself or from Chuck):
>

> Ok, since it has become apparent that some people are doubting John's
> credentials in this area I thought I should point out a few facts:
>
> 1.) John Ordover is in charge of the novels.
>

Which are themselves outside of ST canon.

> 2.) The novels MUST follow Canon (I.E. Star Trek Facts.)
>

If this is the case, then Star trek "facts" and explanations (ie phaser
operation etc) from the novels should be accepted as part of this group.

> 3.) The novels do NOT have to follow Non-Canon (I.E. Star Trek Fiction.)
>

Agreed. Events in books do NOT happen in the real timeline.

> Therefore, John Ordover MUST know which is which.
>

Maybe, but as I showed in point 2, this group does NOT currently accept that
definition. If it does, then all non-historical facts and explanations from
the books should become valid for debate in this group.

> He said two VERY important things:
>
> 1.) The ONLY source for canon information is the live action movies and
> TV episodes.
>

True.

> 2.) If it's not Canon, it's speculation.
>

That is why we have traditionally had the "official" designation, to cover
things like the technical manuals, which are even used by the writers of the
show. This is stated quite clearly in TNG:TM Author's introduction section.


Paul Cassidy

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to

Strowbridge <strow...@home.com> wrote in message
news:398299E2...@home.com...
> PREDATOR wrote:
> >
> > Strowbridge wrote:

> > >
> > > PREDATOR wrote:
>
> > > > > Who the hell is this Ordover, and why should I give a damn about
> > > > > what he thinks? What makes his opinions and ideas more valid than
> > > > > those of an ST writer and producer, and the two people who
actually
> > > > > write, create, and invent most of the tech on the show?
> > > >
> > > > A good question. He's an editor, I believe, of the ST novels. These
> > > > are unrelated to the tech manuals, and so he does not have the
> > > > authority to proclaim the Tech manuals as canon, official, or
> > > > garbage.
> > >
> > > Excuse me! He's the one in charge of what can and can not go into
> > > novels. He says what's official "Star Trek Facts" and what is "Star
> > > Trek Fiction." That is his job.
> >
> > He is in charge of what goes into novels,
>
> And in doing so he sets what is 'Star Trek Fact' and what is 'Star Trek
> Fiction.'
>

Since novels are not considered canon, he must by definition have a
different view to the rest of the franchise. He can allow things to occur in
a novel that cannot occur in the show, since the show has to stick to the
official timeline.

> > His criteria for what can go into novels or not are not necessarily
> > paramount's exact view on canoon of official.
>

> It bloody well better be. He's the ONLY one who has to keep EVERYTHING
> under control. Remember, the novels deal with ALL eras of Star Trek.
> Berga, Sternbach, Okuda, etc. only have one or two limited areas under
> their control.
>

Exactly, but the events in the books do not happen. He can allow a book
through which has a story about Picards early days, but that doesn't mean
it's right. It certainly is not considered canon. The problem here is that
he only deals with the novels. He has no say whatsoever regarding the show,
or any technical manuals that are released. Its a bit like the chairman of
Ford Europe stating policy for Ford America. It wouldn't be accepted a
gospel. It might be true, but until confirmed by those responsible for that
area, no one would accept it as the absolute truth.

> > I'm awaiting word from Rick Sternbach and Paramount, but until I get


> > better authorised word on what is official or canon I'll continue on my
> > merry way with the tech manuals etc.
>

> So until you can get ANOTHER person at Paramount to confirm what this
> source says you are going to ignore the clearest word we have on the
> matter. Not a good way to go.
>

Why not? Surely if the policy is correct, then Sternbach and/or Paramount
will agree, and the debate will be over. We can sit here arguing for months,
but why not find out for certain? I think that finding out information is a
very good way to go, and something that's not done often enough on this
group! Beats burying our head in the sand and refusing to listen IMHO!


Lord Edam de Fromage

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
Two medics rushed into the room pulling the crash cart. "My god what
happened to him?" "umm, take a look at this message from Paul Cassidy..it
gave him a heart attack"

> > It bloody well better be. He's the ONLY one who has to keep EVERYTHING
> > under control.

Except for the parts controlled by the senior editor for Star Trek non
fiction at Pocket Books (Mr. Ordover is the senior editor for Star Trek
Fiction at Pocket Books for those who hadn't realised)

Ho hum. Back to telling people their web sites are wrong coz
Ky...@choam.org says so.

Two Mikes down. Who's left?

iceberg3k

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
michael....@physics.org (Lord Edam de Fromage) wrote:
>Two medics rushed into the room pulling the crash cart. "My god
what
>happened to him?" "umm, take a look at this message from Paul
Cassidy..it
>gave him a heart attack"
>
>> > It bloody well better be. He's the ONLY one who has to keep
EVERYTHING
>> > under control.
>
>Except for the parts controlled by the senior editor for Star
Trek non
>fiction at Pocket Books (Mr. Ordover is the senior editor for
Star Trek
>Fiction at Pocket Books for those who hadn't realised)

There is no bloody such thing as Star Trek non fiction, from a
literary perspective. Saying this is like saying there's such a
thing as Star Wars non fiction. My copy of the Star Trek: TNG TM
says, "Pocket Books - SCIENCE FICTION" (emphasis mine) It's a
ludicrous statement to say that there is such a thing as Star
Trek non fiction.

-- Mark
-ARK, ASVS, ARCR-C
-"Purpose of karate: Make perfect person." - Shihan Fumio Demura

-----------------------------------------------------------

Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com


Elim Garak

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
Kynes wrote:
>
> > Just out of curiosity, who gave you permission to change the FAQ without a vote?
>
> The Rules have always reflected Paramount and Lucasfilm's canon policy; we can't vote
> on that. Even Edam agreed to that when I asked him, which I did before making this
> announcement. I further conferred with the Council and it was decided that no vote was
> necessary.

Ah, thought so. A warsie plot. Thanks for clarifying this.

iceberg3k

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
Elim Garak <pol...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>Kynes wrote:
>>
>> > Just out of curiosity, who gave you permission to change the
FAQ without a vote?
>>
>> The Rules have always reflected Paramount and Lucasfilm's
canon policy; we can't vote
>> on that. Even Edam agreed to that when I asked him, which I
did before making this
>> announcement. I further conferred with the Council and it was
decided that no vote was
>> necessary.
>
>Ah, thought so. A warsie plot. Thanks for clarifying this.

ROFLOL!

Read that again. "The rules have always reflected Paramount and


Lucasfilm's canon policy; we can't vote on that."

Don't blame us, we're not the culprits. Blame Paramount.

Elim Garak

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
Strowbridge wrote:
>
> > From a recent conversation with John Ordover (full transcript available
> > at request, either from myself or from Chuck):
>
> Ok, since it has become apparent that some people are doubting John's
> credentials in this area I thought I should point out a few facts:
>
> 1.) John Ordover is in charge of the novels.
>
> 2.) The novels MUST follow Canon (I.E. Star Trek Facts.)

Excuse me? Didn't we throw out the ST novels exactly because they don't follow canon? Besides, these are just rules for the novels, not the entire Paramount. The
www.startrek.com web site states quite clearly that the TMs are still 'canon'.


> 3.) The novels do NOT have to follow Non-Canon (I.E. Star Trek Fiction.)
>

> Therefore, John Ordover MUST know which is which.

Yes - for his purposes. I.E. for writing and editing the novels. To make sure that people don't get confused and decide they are in a B5 universe or something.
BUT these are obviously not the rules for the entire Paramount, or Star trek.



> He said two VERY important things:
>
> 1.) The ONLY source for canon information is the live action movies and
> TV episodes.
>

> 2.) If it's not Canon, it's speculation.

Tough - he doesn't have any say in Paramount policy, and therefore I don't give a damn.

Elim Garak

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
Kynes wrote:
>
> > > Thus, it is *very* difficult for me to imagine anyone who could contradict him on this
> > > one. He is not in a position to be wrong about something this important. Further, his
> > > say is backed up by the website, indicating a Paramount-wide policy.
> >
> > Oh? You mean the Paramount website does NOT state that the two Jeri Taylor's
> > books are canon?
>
> The Rules note this exception. Since John Ordover edited the manuscripts for those novels,
> I'm pretty sure he knows their status. Not mentioning them just means that he was focusing
> on broader issues.

And yet he didn't mention them. Hmmmm...



> > Or that the TNG and DS9 TMs are 'canon'?
>
> Find me the statement that says this. Oh, it isn't there; it's just your lack of English
> skills playing tricks on you.

Nope, Mr. Bat. It is right there. For those of us with eyes.

http://www.startrek.com/information/faq.asp?ID=1374

That page clearly plays off the TMs written by the tech advisors vs. the older ones, and states that the TNG TM, DS9 TM, and E-D Blueprints are what 'canon' - in
single quotation marks.

Mark Walton

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
> There is no bloody such thing as Star Trek non fiction, from a
> literary perspective. Saying this is like saying there's such a
> thing as Star Wars non fiction. My copy of the Star Trek: TNG TM
> says, "Pocket Books - SCIENCE FICTION" (emphasis mine) It's a
> ludicrous statement to say that there is such a thing as Star
> Trek non fiction.

Well I suppose, a book about how the series is made, about the cast and
people involved in making the show, would be non-fiction.


Ali Tavakoly

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
umm. peter david borrowed heavily from the tng tech manual when writing
"vendetta"....
peace,
ali

Strowbridge <strow...@home.com> wrote in message

news:3982951B...@home.com...
> PREDATOR wrote:


> >
> > Elim Garak wrote:
>
> > > Who the hell is this Ordover, and why should I give a damn about what
> > > he thinks? What makes his opinions and ideas more valid than those of
> > > an ST writer and producer, and the two people who actually write,
> > > create, and invent most of the tech on the show?
> >
> > A good question. He's an editor, I believe, of the ST novels. These are
> > unrelated to the tech manuals, and so he does not have the authority to
> > proclaim the Tech manuals as canon, official, or garbage.
>
> Excuse me! He's the one in charge of what can and can not go into
> novels. He says what's official "Star Trek Facts" and what is "Star Trek
> Fiction." That is his job.
>

> And he said that the only source for Star Trek Fact is the live action
> movies and TV episodes.
>
> C.S.Strowbridge

Lord Edam de Fromage

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
Two medics rushed into the room pulling the crash cart. "My god what
happened to him?" "umm, take a look at this message from Mark Walton..it
gave him a heart attack"

> > There is no bloody such thing as Star Trek non fiction, from a

Mo, Star Trek Fiction is star trek novels etc, the stuff that is not
'Star Trek Fact', but is still Star Trek. Star Trek Non Fiction would be
stuff like episodes and films - the stuff that is both Star Trek and Star
Trek Fact.

Elim Garak

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
iceberg3k wrote:
>
> >> The Rules have always reflected Paramount and Lucasfilm's
> canon policy; we can't vote
> >> on that. Even Edam agreed to that when I asked him, which I
> did before making this
> >> announcement. I further conferred with the Council and it was
> decided that no vote was
> >> necessary.
> >
> >Ah, thought so. A warsie plot. Thanks for clarifying this.
>
> ROFLOL!
>
> Read that again. "The rules have always reflected Paramount and
> Lucasfilm's canon policy; we can't vote on that."
>
> Don't blame us, we're not the culprits. Blame Paramount.

Nope, I don't think so. I blame you because this Ordrover guy is not an official representative of Paramount. At very very best he can only speak about the
novels. He has no control or even contact with the TMs or any other ST media.

Strowbridge

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
Kynes wrote:
>
> "Elim Garak" <pol...@u.washington.edu> wrote

> > Just out of curiosity, who gave you permission to change the FAQ
> > without a vote?
>

> The Rules have always reflected Paramount and Lucasfilm's canon policy;
> we can't vote on that. Even Edam agreed to that when I asked him, which I
> did before making this announcement. I further conferred with the Council
> and it was decided that no vote was necessary.

No vote is ALLOWED. We are not allowed to disagree with Paramount's or
LucasFilm's canon policy.

C.S.Strowbridge

Dalton

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
iceberg3k wrote:

[SNIP]

> >Ah, thought so. A warsie plot. Thanks for clarifying this.
>

OH NO THE EVIL WARSIES ARE OUT TO GET US!!!!!

> ROFLOL!
>
> Read that again. "The rules have always reflected Paramount and


> Lucasfilm's canon policy; we can't vote on that."
>

> Don't blame us, we're not the culprits. Blame Paramount.
>

> -- Mark
> -ARK, ASVS, ARCR-C
> -"Purpose of karate: Make perfect person." - Shihan Fumio Demura
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
> Up to 100 minutes free!
> http://www.keen.com


--
Dalton

http://read.at/asvsfanfics
http://faq.at/asvsfuq

"I hope you have you'er tombstone picked out coffin breath" --LT.Hit-Man

Strowbridge

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
Lord Edam de Fromage wrote:

> > The Rules have always reflected Paramount and Lucasfilm's canon policy;
> > we can't vote on that. Even Edam agreed to that when I asked him, which
> > I did before making this announcement. I further conferred with the
> > Council and it was decided that no vote was necessary.
>

> Yes, and I support you in your stance on the matter, I just think
> you have rushed into it without thinking it through properly.
>
> I busy sorting out old arguments and other ramifications of your
> actions at this very moment, and believe this could be the best thing
> that could happen for the debates in this newsgroup. We can no longer fob
> people off with the been-there-done-that attitude many of the regulars
> have been using over the past twelve months. All debates will have to be
> re-assesed incase the corrected policy changes anything.

I agree, I haven't been this excited about this debate in a long time.
Every argument that we thought was settled can come up again.

C.S.Strowbridge

Strowbridge

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
Paul Cassidy wrote:
>
> It seems to me that we have a problem here. In the past, cases where Rick
> Sternbach quotes have been used, have been rejected on the basis that he
> does not speak for Star Trek, and merely works for the franchise.

Two Points:

1.) He was making statements about the TECHNOLOGY of Star Trek. Real
world people making comments about Fictional Tech. John Ordover is a
real world person making comments about real world problems.

2.) Rick doesn't control the aspect of Trek that he was commenting
about, John does.

> > > From a recent conversation with John Ordover (full transcript
> > > available at request, either from myself or from Chuck):
> >
> > Ok, since it has become apparent that some people are doubting John's
> > credentials in this area I thought I should point out a few facts:
> >
> > 1.) John Ordover is in charge of the novels.
>

> Which are themselves outside of ST canon.

Immaterial.

> > 2.) The novels MUST follow Canon (I.E. Star Trek Facts.)
>

> If this is the case, then Star trek "facts" and explanations (ie phaser
> operation etc) from the novels should be accepted as part of this group.

No, while they must FOLLOW Star Trek Facts, they can create Star Trek
Fiction.

> > 3.) The novels do NOT have to follow Non-Canon (I.E. Star Trek
> > Fiction.)
>

> Agreed. Events in books do NOT happen in the real timeline.

Right.

> > Therefore, John Ordover MUST know which is which.
>

> Maybe, but as I showed in point 2, this group does NOT currently accept
> that definition. If it does, then all non-historical facts and
> explanations from the books should become valid for debate in this group.

Wrong. You tried to claim that cause they have to FOLLOW Canon they must
be Canon. This is obviously wrong.

> > He said two VERY important things:
> >

> > 1.) The ONLY source for canon information is the live action movies and
> > TV episodes.
>
> True.


>
> > 2.) If it's not Canon, it's speculation.
>

> That is why we have traditionally had the "official" designation,

But Paramount doesn't.

> This is stated quite clearly in TNG:TM Author's introduction section.

Give a direct quote. Cause they also said that anything in that book
should be ignored if it interferes with the story. I.E. it's speculation
on how the systems MIGHT work.

C.S.Strowbridge

Strowbridge

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
Paul Cassidy wrote:
>
> Strowbridge <strow...@home.com> wrote

> > Excuse me! He's the one in charge of what can and can not go into
> > novels. He says what's official "Star Trek Facts" and what is "Star
> > Trek Fiction." That is his job.
>

> The novels are not currently considered canon. However, if your
> explanation is true and he determines star trek facts, then if he does
> his job properly, surely non-historical facts from the novels should now
> be considered canon.

While the novels can CONTRADICT canon, they can create new, speculative,
histories, techs, explanations, etc.

C.S.Strowbridge

Strowbridge

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
Lord Edam de Fromage wrote:

> > > It bloody well better be. He's the ONLY one who has to keep
> > > EVERYTHING under control.
>
> Except for the parts controlled by the senior editor for Star Trek non
> fiction at Pocket Books (Mr. Ordover is the senior editor for Star Trek
> Fiction at Pocket Books for those who hadn't realised)

God you people are thick. The novels are NOT separate from Star Trek
Fact. They must NOT contradict Star Trek Fact. They can, and do,
contradict Star Trek Fiction (speculation.) Ergo the person in charge
of the novels MUST know what is Star Trek Fact (Live action episodes)
and what is Star Trek Fiction (everything else.)

C.S.Strowbridge

Strowbridge

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
iceberg3k wrote:

> There is no bloody such thing as Star Trek non fiction, from a
> literary perspective.

I know, BUT the terms "Star Trek Fact" and "Star Trek Fiction" are the
terms the people at Paramount have used.

C.S.Strowbridge

Strowbridge

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
Ali Tavakoly wrote:

> umm. peter david borrowed heavily from the tng tech manual when writing
> "vendetta"....

While the novels (And canon sources) CAN use Star Trek Fiction they are
not bound by it. There is a difference.

C.S.Strowbridge

Paul Cassidy

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to

Strowbridge <strow...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3983404A...@home.com...

> Paul Cassidy wrote:
> >
> > Strowbridge <strow...@home.com> wrote
>
> > > Excuse me! He's the one in charge of what can and can not go into
> > > novels. He says what's official "Star Trek Facts" and what is "Star

> > > Trek Fiction." That is his job.
> >
> > The novels are not currently considered canon. However, if your
> > explanation is true and he determines star trek facts, then if he does
> > his job properly, surely non-historical facts from the novels should now
> > be considered canon.
>
> While the novels can CONTRADICT canon, they can create new, speculative,
> histories, techs, explanations, etc.
>

Sorry, I'm not quite clear what you're saying here. What I am saying is that
if the "technical" facts in a novel are correct (because otherwise Mr
Ordover would not allow them into the novel), then we should accept them
also. Obviously we ignore any historical changes since it is clear that they
do not occur within the timeline. We would also ignore any new technologies
created within the novels. However, we should not ignore explanations or
descriptions of existing unchanged technology. For example, if a novel says
that a standard Federation replicator can create a phaser, we should not
ignore it even if we haven't actually seen it happen on screen.

Space Cowboy

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
I don't have time to read the whole thread yet, just a couple
of quick questions to the group:


Kynes sought to enlighten the world with this:


>"There have been earlier versions of technical manuals,
>including 'Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise' (Shane
>Johnson) and the 'Star Trek Starfleet Technical Manual'
>(Franz Joseph), but these books, although fun to read, were
>not written by production personnel and are not considered
>'canon.'" (This page lists the TNG and DS9 TMs among these
>sources as well as computer games, without making any point
>to distinguish the TMs as official -- because, as Mr. Ordover
>stated crystal-clearly, they are not.)

You know that I've been boosting Geoffery Mandel's past works
here, now that he is on the staff of the ST Art Department
does that at least put him on the same level as Okuda and
Sternbach, since they are all now production personnel?


>
>
>My duty was and is clear. Even Edam, one of the most
>steadfast ST supporters, felt that Paramount's policy
>overrode any past votes. This has long been my feeling as
>well. Clearly, all printed material falls into the category
>of "sources they think are bunk", so we can't use them. No
>vote necessary.
>
>With such overriding consensus on both sides of the debate,
>and a go-ahead from the Council, the canon policy has been
>modified to include the following items as invalid source
>materials:
>
>-- The TNG TM
>-- The DS9 TM
>

Good [or not] would this mean that we are back to 1966 when
we really don't know how fast warpdrive is and "Voyager"
[how would I phrase this] is just one big fat YATI when
compared to TOS?

In that I mean TOS Enterprise seemed to be never more than
days or weeks to any destination in the Milky Way, not years
as in "Voyager".

Kynes

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
"Paul Cassidy" <paul.c...@wxs.nl> wrote in message news:8luka4$aaihd$1...@reader3.wxs.nl...

> The novels are not currently considered canon. However, if your explanation
> is true and he determines star trek facts, then if he does his job properly,
> surely non-historical facts from the novels should now be considered canon.

Novels are canonical on any point where they draw information totally from the
show. Of course, my ass is canonical if it has "The Enterprise's serial number
is NCC-1701" written on it in Magic Marker. Speculation from the novels (or the
Encyclopedia, in Mr. Ordover's example) is just that. Speculation. Inadmissable.

Strowbridge

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
Paul Cassidy wrote:
>
> Strowbridge <strow...@home.com> wrote

> > > > Excuse me! He's the one in charge of what can and can not go into
> > > > novels. He says what's official "Star Trek Facts" and what is "Star
> > > > Trek Fiction." That is his job.
> > >

> > > The novels are not currently considered canon. However, if your
> > > explanation is true and he determines star trek facts, then if he
> > > does his job properly, surely non-historical facts from the novels
> > > should now be considered canon.
> >

> > While the novels can CONTRADICT canon, they can create new,
> > speculative, histories, techs, explanations, etc.
>
> Sorry, I'm not quite clear what you're saying here. What I am saying is
> that if the "technical" facts in a novel are correct (because otherwise

> Mr. Ordover would not allow them into the novel),

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

The Novels are not allowed to CONTRADICT Canon sources. But anything
they add is NOT canon, official or anything else that is usable here.

C.S.Strowbridge

Kynes

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
"Elim Garak" <pol...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message news:3982FD21...@u.washington.edu...

> > The Rules have always reflected Paramount and Lucasfilm's canon policy; we can't vote
> > on that. Even Edam agreed to that when I asked him, which I did before making this
> > announcement. I further conferred with the Council and it was decided that no vote was
> > necessary.
>

> Ah, thought so. A warsie plot. Thanks for clarifying this.

That's right, Elim. Edam is a huge warsie, in on it all. Ego + Ignorance = You.

Kynes

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
"Elim Garak" <pol...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message news:398304E4...@u.washington.edu...

> > The Rules note this exception. Since John Ordover edited the manuscripts for those novels,
> > I'm pretty sure he knows their status. Not mentioning them just means that he was focusing
> > on broader issues.
>
> And yet he didn't mention them. Hmmmm...

Read what I wrote again, idiot.

> > > Or that the TNG and DS9 TMs are 'canon'?
> >
> > Find me the statement that says this. Oh, it isn't there; it's just your lack of English
> > skills playing tricks on you.
>
> Nope, Mr. Bat.

"Mr. Bat"? What the fuck does that mean?

> It is right there. For those of us with eyes.
>
> http://www.startrek.com/information/faq.asp?ID=1374
>
> That page clearly plays off the TMs written by the tech advisors vs. the older ones,
> and states that the TNG TM, DS9 TM, and E-D Blueprints are what 'canon' - in
> single quotation marks.

Point out the quote. Oh, there isn't one, and Paramount officials say otherwise.

Kynes

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
"Space Cowboy" <space...@HephestusStation.com> wrote in message news:8F80BF81EHep...@199.60.229.217...

> I don't have time to read the whole thread yet, just a couple
> of quick questions to the group:

> You know that I've been boosting Geoffery Mandel's past works
&g